List all colorways in the current project with their names and identify the active one.
Get a list of all colorways in the current project with names and which is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'Get' and specifies the content of the response (names and active flag). It does not explicitly state that no state is modified or mention any errors/edge cases, making this minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence that front-loads the operation and result. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned (names and active status). It could mention ordering or whether inactive colorways are included, but 'all colorways' already implies inclusion, so it is essentially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all colorways in the current project') and specifies the returned data (names and which is active). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_current_colorway and other get_* list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is clear from the context: listing colorways in the current project, which pairs naturally with set_current_colorway among siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.